A CLEAR-CUT ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 102, 27 October 1923, Page 11

A CLEAR-CUT ISSUE

10 188 EDITOR.

Sir,—Dr. Murray Butler, as interviewed by your London correspondent, dealt in a maaterly way with the. old question of Capitalism v. Socialism. However, as president of the Columbia University, New York, he should have developed, as well as merely stating, a clear-cut issue of the problem; also, his keen analysis should hq,ve been logical. With due apologies to your correspondent's estimate, ■ it seems to me a foolhardy attempt to play fast and loose with facts, or mentally to reconcile crawling on four leg* with standing on two. Dr. Mun-ay Butler says:W(l) Wealth is the creation of brains, o£ skill, and of character ; savings aie capitaK (2) Labour alone is barely able to earn a sustenance," he went on to say—and here his conclusions agree with those of Mr. Massey and the Welfare League in New Zealand! ."(3) There are only two classes (or parties) in the country (U.S.A.), the Capitalist and the Socialist. (4) The accurate name really for the Labour Party is Socialist Party." (This statement .'is alleged to be true of Great Britain and everywhere.) _ "(5) Qur' conventional party distinctions are outgrown, and a? soon as this clash of classes is" recognised for; clear thinking,' the better. (6) Clear-thinking men will,then take their position on one side or the other of ;this fundamental question.. (7) There if tfothing to ;1?e gained by getting excited about it, or by using heated or violent language. (8) The difference is a rational one, and is clearly understands able.L.. ...._'. ...... -■■'■ ■• ■'■

We admire the" political frankness of %is gentleman, if but a tardy recognition : of what Socialists have asserted these last thirty \or. forty years, viz., that economically and politically there are only two classes. We are further prepared to admit it is wrong to use .heated or violent language, and that the difference between the two parties is a rational one and clearly understandable^ But the two ends of this remarkable article, while harmonious to each other, show the cloven hoof in the intervening argument. The difference p bftween Soc* ialism and Capitalism is clearly ur.cierr stajndable by all thinking people, for society is formed in the struggle lor existence. AH capitalist thinkers know their political opponents are the wageearners, and that the Labour Party stands for Socialism; while all thinking workers equally know that the eupioying class (who ru.le industrially) represent the capitalist class, and stand economically for Capitalism as opposed to Labour.

. But. what- -Dr. Murray Butler did not frankly state was, that thi« apparently plain difference, between the two historical bodies is more than rational—as far as humanity is_ concerned, it is ultra-ration-al. Otherwise, these two political iiari ics would long previously have settled their differences. That they have not done so shows the difference to be something deeper than mere politics "or economics. There is a moral difference of riulities and a practical difference of facts, as both rationally deny the ridit to existence of the other. One <i the«e i.csitions is therefore untenable. It is an impossible assumption that in«oi'b]itj, poverty, and wags-slavery were' Divine ordinations, yet Dr. Murray Butlor assumes such to be the truth. Yet contradictions, science tells us, have no real existence; it is impossible to see intellectually what does not exist. Intellectually, then, this is not a rational difference, but an illogical position on one side or the other. We now see why Dr. Murray Butler was less frank in stating the' real difference. The absurdity of his case is shown by his state- | Ment that the difference is. "rational and easily understood. The doctrine of Socialism rests upon a series of hysterical, economical, and psychological fallacies." If this is so, how is it that the position of the Labour Party, both po- | litieally and industrially, and in spite of i repeated defeats, is still constantly increasing in geometrical ratio ? Let Dr. Murray Butler answer this: Were the | millions who voted Labour in England I and returned the Official Opposition all . mad? His logic won't stand close investigation five minutes. He further says "wealth is the creation of brains, of skill, and of character." This would make good poetry if it was even politically true; yet it is stated as literally true. I How was it when the muscular workers ! w<jre in the firing line? Wealth decreased so alarmingly through the cessation of production that national bankruptcy was threatened if the war continued. Another poetical abstract is that of "skill," If this is true, why has the skilled labour of the world not tho wealth it has created t It is a figure of speech also to say character creates wealth; in reality, it creates all the poverty of the world. Then, as to "savings being capital," if wealth is saved, how can it be employed? Expenditure and saving are contradictions. Unemployed labour is "savings" in a sense, but its wealth does not increase by hoarding, but "rather perishes. "Labour alone is barely able to earn a subsistence." What, then, do its brains, its wealth, its skill, and character bring in? Here Dr. Sutler's logic commits intelloctufd suicide; he does not say, so I will leave it at that.^-I am, etc., T. A. E. 26th October.